Laserfiche WebLink
Case 1:05-cv-00325-JMS-BMK Document 43 Filed 02/26/2008 Page 2 of 6 <br /> careful consideration of Plaintiff's Motion to Vacate and the supporting and <br /> opposing memoranda, the court DENIES Plaintiff's Motion to Vacate. <br /> II. DISCUSSION <br /> A recitation of the facts and procedural history of the case is set forth <br /> in the January 25, 2006 Order and need not be recounted here. The court briefly <br /> summarizes the arguments in Plaintiff's Motion to Vacate. Plaintiff repeats his <br /> arguments that: (1) the State and County violated his constitutional rights in <br /> failing to remedy the damage to his property; and (2) the State and County <br /> deprived him of his Fourteenth Amendment property rights because he is unable to <br /> sell or transfer his property. <br /> A. Plaintiff's Pleading is Construed as a Rule 60(b) Motion <br /> In reviewing a pro se petition, the court must construe the pleadings <br /> liberally. Eldridge v. Block, 832 F.2d 1132, 1137 (9th Cir. 1987) ("The Supreme <br /> Court has instructed the federal court to liberally construe the `inartful pleading' <br /> of pro se litigants." (citing Boag v. MacDougall, 454 U.S. 364, 365 (1982) (per <br /> curiam))). Accordingly, the court construes Plaintiff's Motion to Vacate as a <br /> motion for relief from a judgment or order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil <br /> Procedure 60(b). <br /> Rule 60(b) provides for relief only upon a showing of(1) mistake, <br /> 2 <br />